Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Amendment Bill 2006
Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: I speak on behalf of the Christian Democratic Party on the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Bill, the object of which is to make a number of important amendments to the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999, with incidental amendments made to the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2001 and the Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987. The amendments relate to various matters including, but not limited to, lifetime supervision of lifetime parolees, transfer of juvenile inmates to prison hospitals, home visits to offenders under periodic detention orders and reinstatement of periodic detention orders that have been revoked.
This proposed legislation deals with a bundle of different issues affecting the administration of sentences in this State. When legislation is introduced, the benefit of hindsight is not available to legislators and other decision-makers. After the passage of some time, and with careful reflection, gaps often emerge between the intended objective of legislation and its outworking. The thrust of this bill is to remove certain gaps in the implementation of crime sentencing legislation, serving to finetune its operation for the future.
Members may know of a report by the Institute of Criminology that states that the level of crime has been decreasing and that, concurrently, the prison population has been increasing. In 1984, there were 88 inmates for every 100,000 Australians, but by 2004 that figure had jumped to 158—a 5 per cent rise every year for the past 20 years. The correlation here is clear. It is arguable that the number of prisoners is inversely related to the number of crimes perpetrated in the community. In addition, the institute’s report has also made it clear that from 1996 to 2003 there had been a steady increase in assaults, many of a sexual nature. Thus, with an increasing prison population, it is of utmost importance that the population is carefully administered and that appropriate funding is channelled towards this purpose.
As the amendments brought about by this legislation are many and varied, I seek only to point out some of the more salient ones. Honourable members will be aware that some aspects of the legislation have been introduced in response to the recent, much-publicised case of paroled child killer John Lewthwaite. Mr Lewthwaite was allegedly found by police sunbaking naked on a Sydney beach in the presence of another naked man, an act that clearly would be in breach of his parole conditions.
The bill inserts section 128B to provide that any parole granted to an offender serving an existing life sentence is to be subject to a condition requiring lifetime supervision, during which the offender must comply with obligations imposed by the Commissioner of Corrective Services. For example, under this section, the State Parole Authority will be given powers to order paroled paedophiles to wear electronic bracelets in order to track their movements. Unlike a public register of child sex offenders, which has the risk of vigilantism and driving sex offenders to more lenient jurisdictions, it is conceivable that electronic monitoring will be more effective in keeping abreast of the movements of child sex offenders. To this effect, a central computerised compliance unit has been established in Western Sydney to operate what is termed the Star tracking system—very similar to the global positioning systems that are found in many cars. This system has been trialled for the past year. Also, as indicated in the second reading speech:
If the commissioner determined that electronic monitoring was necessary for a life parolee, it would then be a breach of parole for the life parolee to remove or interfere or otherwise tamper with, the electronic monitoring equipment.
It is clear that though an emphasis must be placed on prisoner rehabilitation, there will be some offenders, regardless of the measures of rehabilitation implemented, who will re-offend. On the basis of the alleged inappropriate behaviour of Mr Lewthwaite, it is arguable that there is such a risk that he will re-offend. In a recent article entitled “Thoughts on Recidivism and Rehabilitation of Rapists”, which can be found in the New South Wales Law Journal, Volume 28(1), Denise Lievore argues:
Given the hidden nature of sex offending, it is difficult to ascertain the prevalence of sex offenders in the community, let alone recidivism rates.
Further, she refers to Australian studies that have found:
… rates of sexual recidivism range from as low as two per cent in some samples to as high as 16 per cent in others, with rates of violent recidivism ranging from 11 per cent to 31 per cent and for any type of offence from 41 per cent to 61 per cent.
Interestingly, on page 294 she stated:
It is not clear whether low rates of sexual recidivism point to rehabilitation, lack of opportunity to reoffend, or non-detection of subsequent sex crimes The available evidence suggests that most sex offenders are not at risk of sexual recidivism, but it is necessary to identify those who are and, in addition, risk assessment of sex offenders ought to be a core practice within correctional systems.
This legislation will put in place sound measures for the administration of the small number of serious sex offenders who were sentenced prior to the truth in sentencing legislation passed in 1990. Further, the bill will add to the list of obligations of an offender under section 81 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999. Section 81 requires that the obligations of an offender while serving a sentence by way of periodic detention, among other things, comply with the requirements of any directions given to the offender under the relevant part of the Act. One obligation will be to allow any correctional officer or other member of staff of the department to visit the offender at the offender’s residential address at any time. Clearly, this will be a significant intrusion into the offender’s lifestyle, and civil libertarians will be up in arms about this development.
I do not understand why this should become a problem. In my earlier life I worked as a parole officer and a probation officer. Under the regulations of the office in Victoria at that time I was not only permitted to visit offenders in their homes but also expected to regularly visit at home persons on my parole list and persons on probation. Furthermore, I was required to write a report on the home life of offenders, and this would be taken into account on any further occasion that an offender or parolee was taken before a magistrate.
The bill will also allow for the transfer of juvenile inmates to prison hospitals. Again, this is an essential part of the Government’s strategy. The Government has indicated that where a juvenile inmate is required to be taken care of in a public hospital, the exorbitant cost for doing so is not warranted. Specific attention must be drawn to the example given in the second reading speech supporting this argument. In that speech it was said that a juvenile inmate at Kariong required a mental health assessment. The only way this assessment could be conducted was for the inmate to be transferred from Kariong through to Wyong public hospital. For one week, 24 hours a day, two staff from Kariong took turns keeping close watch on the inmate. This went on, day after day, night after night, and led to astronomical costs in overtime for the staff required to watch over the offender. It is a commonsense measure to allow juvenile inmates to be transferred to prison hospitals.
Notably, it is of utmost importance that requisite care is taken to ensure that juvenile inmates are not exposed to abuse by other adult prison patients. Section 41C of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 will be amended to remove restrictions that impede transfer to prison hospitals. Prior to transfer, the commissioner must consult with the chief executive officer of Justice Health. The bill also makes changes to section 193A to restrict the class of documents to which a serious offender’s victim is entitled to be given access. This amendment has gone ahead with the consent of lobby groups. According to the second reading speech in the Legislative Assembly:
Feedback from representatives of key victims’ lobby organisations is that giving victims access to all documents has not benefited them. By way of example, victims have found it distressing to read that a serious offender has had access to medication for a psychological disorder whereas the victim has not had access to that.
Victims will continue to have access to documents that indicate the measures the offender has taken, or is taking, to address his or her offending behaviour. Other amendments are made providing for the reinstatement of periodic detention orders that have been revoked, the suspension of warrants of commitment, and the appointment and functions of departmental compliance and monitoring officers. Previous speakers have indicated their regret that this House has not had sufficient time to carefully examine the legislation. There are certainly some contentious provisions that merit further examination. That being said, however, I commend the general thrust of the legislation. The Christian Democratic Party supports the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Amendment Bill.